5 ms·

Note for anyone considering this: it's GPL licensed.

• lorenzhs 8y ago
  The next version, which is currently under development, will change this to BSD: https://github.com/xxsds/sdsl-lite https://github.com/xxsds/sdsl-lite
• still_grokking 8y ago
  Why is this pointed out? Most software has some license. GPL is an approved open source license. It grands all required freedoms to the users. The parent comment reads instead as if the software wasn't free. But it is. So there is no problem in using it. Perhaps only politics… This anti-GPL campaign is slowly getting really tiring!
  • usefulcat 8y ago
    How is it that merely pointing out the license is considered anti-GPL? Would that fact not be considered a good thing by anyone who favors the GPL?
    • still_grokking 8y ago
      Pointing to the fact that it's GPL licensed in such a tone sounds like a warning, and I'm quit sure exactly that was the intention. Or else why would someone stress that fact? Never read something along the lines: "Note for anyone considering this: it's BSD licensed."
      • josephg 8y ago
        The GPL and BSD licenses aren’t symmetric. Nobody warns about something being BSD licensed because you can freely incorporate a BSD licensed library into any project without changing the license of the resulting project. But the reverse is not true - if you embed GPL software in a BSD project (or commercial project), the resulting work must be licensed under the GPL. I prefer all the opensource software I write to use a BSD style license, because I want to retain the ability to use any of my opensource work in commercial projects. GPL warnings like this are useful for me - it’s good to know that I can’t use this library in any of my projects (at least until they change the license).
• KirinDave 8y ago
  Yes. Answering a resounding "No" to the unspoken but common question, "Can my company use this work for free in ways which do not contribute in any way back to the community that granted it to us, thereby reselling free work to improve our profit margin and IP portfolio."
  • bch 8y ago
    > ...which do not contribute in any way > ...to improve our profit margin and IP portfolio. Pretty black and white presumptions (but license talks often end up that way).
    • KirinDave 8y ago
      If so, what value does your comment bring to the discussion?
      • bch 8y ago
        Is there no way to criticize GPL without being considered a dead-weight parasite? Is there no case for not releasing code (immediately) than greed? Is there no other way to support a person/project other than that code? Are profit/loss the really the only concern for a project that can’t/won’t release code? ...
        • KirinDave 8y ago
          > Is there no way to criticize GPL without being considered a dead-weight parasite? Not with this attitude. "Why can't you just make the case for me?" There aren't many ways of reading this that offer honest intent. > Is there no case for not releasing code (immediately) than greed? You tell me what you had in mind. Security POCs come to mind. But since you didn't immediately point that out I think it's unlikely you had it in mind. > Are profit/loss the really the only concern for a project that can’t/won’t release code? I guess pride and/or selfishness?
  • mindslight 8y ago
    Unless it's AGPL, that answer is actually still "Yes".